CAT/C/62/D/688/2015 5.3 On 28 October 2016, the complainant submitted comments on the observations by the State party, claiming that the human rights situation in Ethiopia, including the situation of political opponents and critical voices, has deteriorated since the end of 2015, which puts him at further risk of torture upon his return. 5.4 In response to the allegations of the State party that his medical conditions occurred after the domestic proceedings had ended on 20 January 2015, the complainant submits that the medical report dated 2 April 2015 confirms that the wound was not fresh at the time of the examination and that symptoms affecting his left hip were consistent with an old osseous injury and with a consolidated tear of the adductor muscles. The complainant also states that the Federal Administrative Court did not decide that the complainant was healthy but merely noted the lack of medical evidence in the case file. The complainant finds the State party’s objections to be illogical, as it asserted that his injury occurred later whereas he had in fact described the injury during his asylum interview. As concerns the posttraumatic stress disorder, the complainant submits an additional psychiatric report dated 27 October 2015 which contains details of his medical history and confirmation that he suffered depressive episodes, as well as a diagnosis of severe post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the past torture. The complainant asserts that the compelling medical evidence that he submitted establishes that he was tortured in Ethiopia and confirms the credibility of his account. The complainant points out that the State party has neither ordered a separate medical examination nor taken any steps to invalidate the complainant’s medical evidence. 5.5 In respect of the discrepancies between the screening interview and the substantive asylum interview, the complainant explains that the different nature of the two hearings must be considered in assessing the credibility of the account given by an asylum seeker. 5 The first screening interview serves only to summarize an asylum seeker’s reasons for leaving. While all of the discrepancies are based on the screening interview, the complainant maintains that he gave a correct and full account in his lengthy and detailed substantive asylum interview. It is submitted that the State party has not responded to this explanation, which was already provided in the complaint. 5.6 Regarding the time elapsed between the complainant’s resignation and his arrest, he recalls that he gave all the dates according to the Ethiopian calendar, and submits that the dates must have been incorrectly converted to the Gregorian calendar. Since the complainant was not familiar with the Gregorian calendar, he was not in a position to correct an error. 5.7 In respect of the content of the documents that he signed prior to his release from prison, the complainant did not state during the screening interview that he had actually read the documents; he only presumed that such documents would typically contain denunciations of any dissident acts and the promise of future compliance with the Government. The complainant had already given a full and correct account during the substantive asylum interview. The discrepancy in this case is minor in that the question is whether he actually knew or merely presumed to know the content of the documents. This slight discrepancy is not sufficient to characterize the account of the complainant as implausible. 5.8 In regard to the comment by the State party that he should have given more details about the events that occurred between his resignation and his release from prison, the complainant explains that in principle, the structure of a substantive asylum interview is that an asylum seeker is asked questions and provides answers to those questions. The complainant answered every question in extensive detail; his substantive asylum interview was far longer than average, taking place from 9 a.m. to 6.05 p.m., with more than 220 questions posed. It is not clear to the complainant how much more detail he could have been expected to provide as he had already described with great detail his brief visits to two torture victims in Ethiopia. 5 6 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, M.A. v. Switzerland (application No. 52589/13), judgment of 18 November 2014, para. 60.